War With Iraq - A Bad Policy for America
by Burt Nanus*
The Administration has made its strongest case for "regime change" in Iraq
to both the United Nations and the American people. President Bush has
left no doubt that the United States is prepared to use military force against
Iraq preemptively and unilaterally if, in his judgment, that is the only
way to remove the threat he perceives from Saddam Hussein. Congress
appears to be anxious to give the President whatever support he requests. Is this
headlong rush toward war with Iraq wise?
Reasonable people can differ as to whether clear and convincing evidence
has been presented that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction or that he
poses a direct threat to the United States. However, even if such evidence
were abundant and incontrovertible, a preemptive war on Iraq is a very bad
idea and the wrong policy for the United States for at least ten major
reasons;
1. Iraq is not America's highest military priority or greatest threat -
Al-Qaeda and its collaborators represent a much greater threat, since it
is an enemy that already has launched a devastating attack on America and is
organized to do so again. Many thousands of Al-Qaeda terrorists were
trained in Afghanistan and only a small fraction of them have been killed
or apprehended to date. These people are armed, dangerous and have
committed their own lives to the destruction of the United States.
Moreover, the war for Afghanistan is far from over. The Karzai regime is
poor, weak and unable to protect itself even in Kabul. Afghan warlords
have control of most of the country, corruption is rampant, and the Taliban are
regrouping. With so much left to do in Afghanistan, and the need to chase
down Al-Qaeda and their collaborators everywhere in the world, it is folly
to contemplate opening up a new front for U.S. military involvement at
this time. In addition, if the major purpose of U.S. policy is to keep weapons
of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists, other countries like
Iran and Pakistan may pose a far bigger immediate threat than Iraq.
2. The death toll of war with Iraq is unacceptable - Saddam routinely
hides his weapons and military forces among the civilian population, so
aerial bombardment alone will not defeat him. Any attack on Iraq must
necessarily involve fighting on the ground in Baghdad, a densely populated
city with over six million people, and in other major Iraqi cities. Huge
numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians will be killed as well as thousands or
perhaps tens of thousands of American soldiers. Furthermore, there is no
Northern Alliance to help the U.S. forces as there was in Afghanistan, and
most Iraqis - even the Kurds, who have been most oppressed - will fear
Saddam's terrible and certain retribution if they help the Americans. Our
other allies, even if they ultimately sign a U. N. resolution on military
action in Iraq, are not likely to send many of their own troops. American
soldiers will be virtually alone in a military environment even more
hostile and deadly than Vietnam.
3. War is not necessary - Contrary to the Administration's rhetoric, an
effective alternative to war exists - namely, containment of Saddam
Hussein until he dies or there is regime change from within Iraq itself.
Containment is a strategy with proven success. Stalin, Mao and fifty years
of other Communist leaders were successfully deterred from using their
weapons of mass destruction by the certain knowledge that doing so would
trigger massive retaliation. Other "evil" societies with weapons of mass
destruction - e.g., North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. - have been similarly
deterred from using them, as has Iraq itself over the past decade.
Containment has been proven effective - indeed, the constraints on Iraq
could be made even tighter if other nations cooperated - and the cost of
such a policy to the U.S. in lives and dollars is far less than the cost
of war.
4. A different regime in Iraq may not necessarily be a better one for
America - Victory over Saddam cannot be assured but even if the U.S.
prevails, there are few moderate political leaders in Iraq and no
democratic traditions upon which to build. A puppet government set up by
the U.S. would encounter great resistance and would likely be the constant
target of assassination attempts. If somehow fair elections could be held,
a hostile Islamic Fundamentalist government could result and, in any
event, the new government may be loath to give up its weapons of mass
destruction. Furthermore, Americans are seriously deluding themselves if they think
that any Iraqi regime following Saddam could survive for very long if it were
seen as pro-American after a U.S. attack that killed thousands of innocent
Iraqi civilians.
5. War makes America less safe, not more safe - A preemptive attack on
Iraq certainly will be seen throughout the Arab world as a blow by the
West against Islam, thereby triggering the terrible scenarios in Samuel
Huntington's book "The Clash of Civilizations." Such an act would silence
any moderating or modernizing elements in the Arab World and could
seriously destabilize friendly governments in the region. The disparate
factions that now maintain an uneasy balance in the region are likely to
unite around their hatred of the U.S. This may well lead to the creation
of tens of thousands of new terrorists bent on America's destruction. Our
experience in liberating Kuwait should have proven beyond any doubt that
American intervention in the Middle East is never appreciated by Arab
nations and does not result in democratic regimes or pro-American
policies.
6. The American military force is poorly suited for nation-building - A
preemptive attack on Iraq embroils the United States in an open-ended
commitment to nation-building in the Middle East, which no Western nation
has ever been able to accomplish successfully. Given the conflicts among
the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, and the fragility of all of Iraq's
eighbors, the U.S. can not tear up Iraq and simply walk away from it
without the most awful consequences for the people of Iraq and the region.
On the other hand, the American people are not likely to have the patience
to endure a long and costly nation-building effort, especially if U.S.
soldiers are the target of continuing attacks during the reconstruction
period. Support for an extended military involvement in Iraq could
evaporate very rapidly, and Vietnam-type demonstrations in the American
streets are to be expected under these circumstances.
7. A preemptive war on Iraq is a bad model for the world - Other nations
who also feel threatened, (e.g., China by Taiwan, Russia by Georgia, India
by Kashmir) will be able to point to a superpower example of preventive
war to justify their own aggressive actions. Moreover, such an act by the
United States undermines the United Nations, whose charter states that the
only justification for military conflict between nations is self-defense.
8. War is not good for Israel - An attack on Iraq could be devastating for
Israel, our only true ally in the region. If Saddam Hussein sees himself
as having his back against the wall and about to be overthrown by America, he
may well decide to use his weapons of mass destruction before he loses
them. Israel would be the obvious target. Indeed, given the current
tensions in the Middle East, and the anti-American feeling a war on Iraq
would fire up throughout the region, Saddam is likely to be applauded and
supported by other Arab regimes for doing so. Israeli retaliation with
weapons of mass destruction is to be expected and, as the Egyptian foreign
minister stated so well, "The gates of Hell will have been opened."
9. A preemptive war on Iraq estranges America from its own allies - Public
opinion throughout the world, even in the friendliest nations, is strongly
opposed to U.S. military action against Iraq. Not one of Iraq's neighbors,
who should be the most threatened by Saddam's regime, support such an
invasion. Even if America succeeds in forcing a U.N. vote authorizing
intervention in Iraq, massive anti-American protests will arise in many
nations. This could make it politically perilous for leaders of even the
friendliest nations to provide assistance to America on other
high-priority matters such as shared intelligence for the battle against terrorism,
drugs or organized crime. This is still another reason why Americans will be
less safe in their own homes after an attack on Iraq.
10. A war on Iraq is bad for the U.S. economy - According to the
Administration's own estimates, the direct costs of a war in Iraq could be
from $100 to 200 billions, and others think the costs could go higher.
This comes at a time when the U.S. already faces increasing budget deficits, a
weak economy, and the need for additional expenditures on homeland
defense. In addition, oil prices will shoot up, at least temporarily; interest
rates will rise as federal borrowing to meet the deficits crowds out borrowing
by the private sector; anti-Americanism may make American businesses overseas
targets for boycotts and terrorists; and uncertainty will continue to
inhibit business investment and further depress stock prices at home. No
one should delude themselves into thinking that a war with Iraq will be
good for American business.
Any one or two of these arguments should be reason enough for Americans to
vigorously oppose an American invasion of Iraq. Taken together, they
provide a persuasive and compelling case for Congress to exercise its sole
Constitutional authority to declare war by refusing to allow the Bush
Administration to undertake this terribly misguided and potentially
disastrous policy. The burden of history will weigh heavily on those who
could have prevented this catastrophe but remained silent.
_____________________
*Burt Nanus is Professor Emeritus of Management at the University of
Southern California and the author of ten books, seven of them on
leadership including "Visionary Leadership" and "Leaders Who Make a
Difference." |
